I feel like you are really, really throwing a word salad around here.
An OS can’t “abuse” swap, any more than booting up a drive (or using a HDD to write data) “abuses” it. That just isn’t how it works. We buy stuff to use it. We don’t buy it to let it sit on a shelf. If you do, you wasted that money.
If your argument is “If my OS didn’t swap, I’d have less wear and tear on my drives!”, well, I suppose in some conceptual way that’s true, but you’d have a far weaker OS, unable to flex as memory demands ebb and flow, which would be incredibly limiting in many common situations. The last OS that I can remember that simply couldn’t do this was AmigaOS from 1986 or so, and while it was incredible in some things (fast multitasking, for what little fit in memory) it had massive limitations (memory limits, no memory protection being key items) that go part and parcel with swap. Oh, and MacOS until OSX was limiting too, with swap, but no real protected memory + preemptive multitasking.
VM, swap, page files, page activity, and using the machine as Apple designed it is not a bad thing. Every modern OS (looking at Linux & Friends, Windows NT+, and modern MacOS) all have swap files and use them routinely. In a machine with an MMU (almost every machine since the 386DX) that’s exactly what you want to happen - so you can run stuff that can page parts of itself out of memory when required, all controlled by the OS, and all protected by the OS into a kernel layer and a userland layer. It turns out that loading an entire program / an entire program’s dataset into memory, all at once, can sometimes be incredibly inefficient, and it’s far smarter to page it out to disk when you don’t need to access all of it.
This concept that we all should micromanage our swap, or that using it is bad, needs to die. The nonsense YouTube kids that post clickbait around this need to stop. It’s simply not true.
I’d really like to know! 